If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Help pay the mortgage, bake the cookies, and raise socially conscious, compassionate children.
We are supposed to purposefully expose our progeny to all religions, lifestyles, and backgrounds in the name of diversity.
And we’re not supposed to let them play with evil toys like stick ponies, Barbies, or trampolines.

Tree houses? Forget about it. They’re super-duper dangerous and should be torn down immediately.

Forbes recently published a list of dangerous toys that were recalled in 2010 for safety reasons. The list includes a stick pony (long reins could strangle a child), plush asparagus (wire could poke through and cause abrasions), and a pogo stick (falling risk). Obviously parents are too stupid to check over their kids’ toys for loose or broken parts, or understand the “falling risk” associated with pogo sticks.

While we’re busy cutting up our kids’ hotdogs, we are supposed to broaden their worldview and encourage their minds to open into tolerant little sponges of acceptance.

We’re not supposed to care that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School Czar, promotes the sexual education of children as young as five. That’s not morally deplorable, that’s progressive!

There's always gotta be a piece of hyperbole. The only sort of "sex education" that's ever been proposed for children that young are basic lessons on "innapropriate touching" and "private places" in order to address the very real danger of unreported domestic child abuse.

Every kid needs to know that some places are private places and should be able to report sexual abuse, but if their parents are the perpetrators (and most often child abuse comes from a family member) then the actual victims will be overlooked if schools do not address this.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.